Foreign Receivers and Judicial Assignees. He finds that, notwithstanding this pro vision, the "full faith and credit" which is given to a judicial assignment of the property of an insolvent, under the laws of a sister state of the Union, is no greater than that which would be given to a similar assignment if made in the Turkish or in the Chinese Empire, under such laws as there subsist. In other words, he finds that the forty-four states and five territories which compose the American Union, are, in respect of his power to collect the debts due the estate which he represents, and to gather together and re move to the principal place of administration any assets belonging to it which he can find, sovereign nations, foreign to each other; so that, when, in the attempted exercise of his office, he crosses the boundary which divides two of these sovereignties, — we will say, journeys a distance of forty-four miles from Boston to Providence, — he finds himself in a foreign country, where he is called a foreign receiver" and he finds that he has no rights except such as maybe extended to him under a principle of comity. This principle of comity will, in some cases, be expressed in legislative acts which will be found sufficient for his purposes. In other cases, he will make an appeal to the judicial courts; and the answers which will be made to his ap peals in different states will be as variant, and often as dubious, as the responses of the Delphian oracle. Such is the " full faith and credit" which will be given to the judi cial proceedings appointing him to his office and trust when he crosses the boundaries of the state where he has been appointed. II. Judicial Holdings as to the Status of • "Foreign Receivers." To make more clear the difficulties which will beset the trustee upon whom the admin istration of an insolvent estate has been judicially devolved, whenever he crosses the boundaries of the state of his appointment, it may be stated, on a unanimous concur rence of judicial authority, that he finds
119
himself divested of all power whatever; 1 that he cannot sue to collect a debt due to the estate which he represents, unless the courts of the state in which he attempts to sue allow him to do so, on the principle of mere favor or comity; 2 that this comity will never be extended to the prejudice of the citizens of the state in which he attempts to sue, nor when to do so will contravene the public policy or the laws of such state,5 and will not be allowed to operate in any case so as to deprive tlje creditors of the insol1 Booth v. Clark, 17 How. (U. S.) 322, 333; Moseby v. Burrow, 52 Tex. 396, 403. Other cases affirming this doc trine are : Hunt v. Columbian Ins. Co. 55 Me. 290; s. c. 92 Am. Dec. 592; Tully v. Herrin, 44 Miss. 626; Kronberg v. Elder, 18 Kan. 150, 152; Catlin v. Wilcox Silver Plate Co. 123 Ind. 477; Sercomb v. Catlin, 128 Ill. 556; s.c. 15 Am. St. Rep. 147; Chicago etc.R. Co. v. Keokuk etc. Packet Co. 108 Ill. 317; Wilkinson v. Culver, 23 Blatchf. (U. S.) 416; Reynolds v. Stockton, 43 N. J. Eq. 211; s.c. 3 Am. St. Rep. 305; State v. Jacksonville etc. R. Co. 15 Fla. 201; Holmes v. Sherwood, 3 McCrary (U. S.) 405; Kain v. Smith, 80 N. Y. 458; 1. c. 8 Abb. (N. C.) 426; Kilmer v. Hobart, 58 How. Pr. (N.Y.) 452; Olney i/. Tanner, 21 Blatchf. (U.S.) 540; Brigham v. Luddington,i2 id. 237; Warren v. Union National Bank, 7 Phila. (Pa.) 156; Hope etc. Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 2 Rob. (N. Y.) 278; Farmers etc. Ins. Co. v. Needles, 52 Mo. 17; Willitts v. Waite, 25 N.Y. 577; Bartlett v. Wilbur, 53 Md. 485; Day v. Postal Telegraph Co. 66 Md. 354. 'Olney v. Tanner, 10 Fed. Rip. 101, 104; Humphreys v. Hopkins, 81 Cal. 551; s. c. 15 Am. St. Rep. 76; Ser comb v. Catlin, 128 Ill. 556; s. c. 15 Am. St. Rep. 147; Hunt v. Columbian Ins. Co. 55 Me. 290; s. c. 92 Am. Dec. 592; Iloyt v. Thompson, 5 N. Y. 320; Hoyt v. Thompson, 19 N. Y. 297. ' Mowry v. Crocker, 6 Wis. 320; Cook v. Van Horn, 81 Wis. 291; Iglehart v. Bierce, 36 Ill. 133; McLean v. Har din, 3 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 294; s. c. 69 Am. Dec. 740; Mahorner v. Hooe, 9 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 247; s. c. 48 Am. Dec. 706; Humphreys v. Hopkins, 81 Cal. 551; s. c. 15 Am. St. Rep. 76; Wells v. Wells, 35 Miss. 638; Smith v. Godfrey, 28 N. H. 379; s. c. 61 Am. Dec. 617; Kanaga v. Taylor, 7 Oh. St. 134; s. c. 70 Am. Dec. 62; Bank v. McLeod, 38 Oh. St. 174, 180; Walters v. Whitlock, 9 Fla. 86; s. c. 76 Am. Dec. 607; Roche v. Washington, 19 Ind. 53; s.c. 81 Am. Dec. 376; Hurd v. Elizabeth, 41 N.J. L. I; Johnson v. Parker, 4 Bush (Ky.) 149; Saunders v. Williams, 5 N. H. 213; Bagby v. Atlantic etc. R. Co. 86 Pa. St. 291; Pierce v. O'Brien, 129 Mass. 314, 315; Taylor v. Columbian Ins. Co. 14 Allen (Mass.) 353; Boulware v. Davis, 90 Ala. 207; Chandler v. Siddle, 3 Dill. (U. S.) 477; Pugh v. Hurtt, 52 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 22; Thurston v. Rosenfield, 42 Mo. 474; Runk v. St. John, 29 Barb. (N.Y.) 585; Palmer v. Mason, 42 Mich. 146, 152; Booth v. Clark, 17 How. (U. S.) 322.
